Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 20, 2014, 03:18:51 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
| | |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
| | | |-+  Cheney Daughter Remark
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 Print
Author Topic: Cheney Daughter Remark  (Read 24602 times)
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #225 on: October 22, 2004, 10:26:23 pm »
Ignore

Here's what a defender of the Amendment says about it:

The Federal Marriage Amendment introduced in Congress takes a prudent and reasonable approach to the problem. It abolishes same-sex marriage in the United States, and prohibits judges from legalizing other forms of same-sex unions, while preserving both federalism in family law and local self-government by protecting the authority of the legislatures to establish state policy regarding whether (and to what extent) to give some legal benefits to unmarried — including same-sex — couples.

bold added by me to show my point.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wardle200402170918.asp


I'm too tired to address anything else tonight.

Would you then, after nappy time, you please explain why it talks about laws being "construed."  If this type of marriage is "illegal," there would be no reason to for state and the US Constitution to be "construed."  Much like the slavery prohibition clause in 13th Amendment, there would be no need for anything in a state constitution to be "construed."  That's not a defender of the amendment says, it is what the proposed amendment itself says.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #226 on: October 22, 2004, 10:27:33 pm »
Ignore

To make it clear that judges can't review the matter
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #227 on: October 22, 2004, 10:46:26 pm »
Ignore

I will also add that the commentator, Lynn D. Wardle, while a law professor (at Brigham Young University), is not part part of the White House staff, not a member of Congress or a state legislature, nor a member of the judiciary (who might have rules about making such comments). 

This is once again the staw man argument.  Misrepresent the opponent's position, and attack the misrepresentation.  It is, unfortunately, typical of elcorazon in this discussion.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #228 on: October 22, 2004, 10:49:08 pm »
Ignore

I don't really get what you and elcorazon are arguing about.

Do either of you support this amendment?
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #229 on: October 22, 2004, 10:58:00 pm »
Ignore

I'm not happy that elcorazon is misrepresenting Bush's position. 

I'd support it.  If a state wants to permit civil unions and/or same sex marriages, fine.  That state should force that on another state.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
elcorazon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2213


View Profile
« Reply #230 on: October 23, 2004, 09:49:24 am »
Ignore

Here's what a defender of the Amendment says about it:

The Federal Marriage Amendment introduced in Congress takes a prudent and reasonable approach to the problem. It abolishes same-sex marriage in the United States, and prohibits judges from legalizing other forms of same-sex unions, while preserving both federalism in family law and local self-government by protecting the authority of the legislatures to establish state policy regarding whether (and to what extent) to give some legal benefits to unmarried — including same-sex — couples.

bold added by me to show my point.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wardle200402170918.asp


I'm too tired to address anything else tonight.

Would you then, after nappy time, you please explain why it talks about laws being "construed."  If this type of marriage is "illegal," there would be no reason to for state and the US Constitution to be "construed."  Much like the slavery prohibition clause in 13th Amendment, there would be no need for anything in a state constitution to be "construed."  That's not a defender of the amendment says, it is what the proposed amendment itself says.
J.J.:  there are 2 points:  1) to make same sex marriage illegal; 2) to allow states NOT to construe "other similar rights" to marital rights as being required for other types of unions from other states.

One other point.  The law professor who you claim is making a "straw man argument" supports the amendment.  And although he's not part of the administration, he's well qualified to interpret the meaning of the words.

By the way, EVEN if you were correct about the interpretation, which I don't believe you are, calling me out for misconstruing Bush' position is out of line, given that clearly reasonable minds CAN construe this amendment to mean what I said it means. 
Logged


"The most important thing to remember is, no matter what anybody tells you, it is never, ever unpatriotic or un-American to question anything in a democracy"
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #231 on: October 23, 2004, 10:31:03 am »
Ignore

J.J.:  there are 2 points:  1) to make same sex marriage illegal; 2) to allow states NOT to construe "other similar rights" to marital rights as being required for other types of unions from other states.

One other point.  The law professor who you claim is making a "straw man argument" supports the amendment.  And although he's not part of the administration, he's well qualified to interpret the meaning of the words.

By the way, EVEN if you were correct about the interpretation, which I don't believe you are, calling me out for misconstruing Bush' position is out of line, given that clearly reasonable minds CAN construe this amendment to mean what I said it means. 

First, the law professor isn't a "straw man argument," on my part.   You imply that because it is Wardle's argument, this is the intent of the people proposing the amendment.  Second, you should know that legislative intent, which is what you are claiming, is determined by those people in the legislative process, not an outside law professor.  You really should know things like that.

Second, here is your quote about the text of the amendment:


The specific language is irrelevant, of course, since it would never pass; it is merely an election year attempt to woo voters who are scared of anything relating to gay rights.
[/i]

This is yet another example of the arrogance that both you and Kerry share.  You called the language of the proposed "irrelevant".  You have stated you "believe" on how sexual preference is determined, you "believe" that this might be God's will, you "believe" that this is  what Bush was thinking in proposing it, and that you "believe" that this is what the text of the amendment means.  I, on the first three points say, "It possible, but we don't have any real way of knowing."  You expect us to accept what you "believe" as fact, because you "believe" it.  That is intellectually dishonest.

On the fourth point, I have asked, "Okay, if this ammendment creates a situation where the Federal Government makes sames sex unions totally illegal, why is there a need to worry a state constitution being 'construed'[b/]."  A state constitutonal provision, permitting, even expressly, same sex marriages would be null and void, if the amendment violated the US Constitution, much like those clauses permitting slavery in some state constitutions.  There would be no need to instruct the courts how a state constitution should be "construed" in that case.  Why don't you answer the question?  Does it again interfer with what you "believe?"
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Bogart
bogart414
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 604
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -5.39

View Profile
« Reply #232 on: October 23, 2004, 12:50:13 pm »
Ignore

Here's what a defender of the Amendment says about it:

The Federal Marriage Amendment introduced in Congress takes a prudent and reasonable approach to the problem. It abolishes same-sex marriage in the United States, and prohibits judges from legalizing other forms of same-sex unions, while preserving both federalism in family law and local self-government by protecting the authority of the legislatures to establish state policy regarding whether (and to what extent) to give some legal benefits to unmarried — including same-sex — couples.
Really, this is just another interpretation. Defender or not, I think it's being interpreted incorrectly.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2004, 12:52:56 pm by Bogart »Logged

Economic score: -0.65
Social score: -2.61

elcorazon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2213


View Profile
« Reply #233 on: October 23, 2004, 05:25:14 pm »
Ignore

J.J.:  there are 2 points:  1) to make same sex marriage illegal; 2) to allow states NOT to construe "other similar rights" to marital rights as being required for other types of unions from other states.

One other point.  The law professor who you claim is making a "straw man argument" supports the amendment.  And although he's not part of the administration, he's well qualified to interpret the meaning of the words.

By the way, EVEN if you were correct about the interpretation, which I don't believe you are, calling me out for misconstruing Bush' position is out of line, given that clearly reasonable minds CAN construe this amendment to mean what I said it means. 

First, the law professor isn't a "straw man argument," on my part.   You imply that because it is Wardle's argument, this is the intent of the people proposing the amendment.  Second, you should know that legislative intent, which is what you are claiming, is determined by those people in the legislative process, not an outside law professor.  You really should know things like that.

Second, here is your quote about the text of the amendment:


The specific language is irrelevant, of course, since it would never pass; it is merely an election year attempt to woo voters who are scared of anything relating to gay rights.
[/i]

This is yet another example of the arrogance that both you and Kerry share.  You called the language of the proposed "irrelevant".  You have stated you "believe" on how sexual preference is determined, you "believe" that this might be God's will, you "believe" that this is  what Bush was thinking in proposing it, and that you "believe" that this is what the text of the amendment means.  I, on the first three points say, "It possible, but we don't have any real way of knowing."  You expect us to accept what you "believe" as fact, because you "believe" it.  That is intellectually dishonest.

On the fourth point, I have asked, "Okay, if this ammendment creates a situation where the Federal Government makes sames sex unions totally illegal, why is there a need to worry a state constitution being 'construed'[b/]."  A state constitutonal provision, permitting, even expressly, same sex marriages would be null and void, if the amendment violated the US Constitution, much like those clauses permitting slavery in some state constitutions.  There would be no need to instruct the courts how a state constitution should be "construed" in that case.  Why don't you answer the question?  Does it again interfer with what you "believe?"
I've already answered that question several times.  You just don't like my answer.  The construed language deals with issues such as civil unions, not marriage.

I know what legislative intent is.  We hadn't been discussing that.

My "irrelevant" comment had to do with the fact that the amendment is NOT going to pass, so we are really wasting our time with this argument.
Logged


"The most important thing to remember is, no matter what anybody tells you, it is never, ever unpatriotic or un-American to question anything in a democracy"
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #234 on: October 23, 2004, 07:04:57 pm »
Ignore

I've already answered that question several times.  You just don't like my answer.  The construed language deals with issues such as civil unions, not marriage.

I know what legislative intent is.  We hadn't been discussing that.

My "irrelevant" comment had to do with the fact that the amendment is NOT going to pass, so we are really wasting our time with this argument.

You have yet to answer my question about the language of the amendment, though are trying to change the subject.  Here is the text of the amendment:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

It refers specifically to a marriage.  If marriage is made illegal, why even mention the possibility that marriage can exist?  This clause refers to possible marriage and a possible union; it refers to the if a constitution can be "construed" to regire a marriage.  If adopted, the courts would not be able to base the permission of a marriage on a constitutional clause, but it not preclude a court from basing its decision on a statutory provision.

You indicated that you think this is a "waste" of time.  I could disagree more.  It is an excellent example of how intellectually dishonest John Kerry's answer was, and the intellectual dishonesty of some of his supporters.

Now, you started out by asking me if I was gay and when did I chose my sexual preference.  I, interestingly. had volunteered the information earlier.  I'm going to ask you a similar question.  I will not ask what your prefference is.  I do ask, however, whatever your sexual preference is, what proof do you have that it is inborn, i.e., congenital, or genetic?  What proof do you have that there was at least not an element of choice?
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Pictor Ignotus
TCash101
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6434


View Profile
« Reply #235 on: October 23, 2004, 07:42:50 pm »
Ignore

Geez! Are you all still talking about this?Huh

36000 dies from the flu last year! Terrrorists are taking Iraq. Corporations are getting tax breaks that could be ours! Babies are "being murdered"! Pat Robertson is in the early stages of alzheimers! People are making bets on the election based on 7-11 coffee!

Get some perspective!
Logged

Renew our Democracy!
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #236 on: October 23, 2004, 07:46:27 pm »
Ignore

Geez! Are you all still talking about this?Huh

36000 dies from the flu last year! Terrrorists are taking Iraq. Corporations are getting tax breaks that could be ours! Babies are "being murdered"! Pat Robertson is in the early stages of alzheimers! People are making bets on the election based on 7-11 coffee!

Get some perspective!


Next you will blame the flu deaths on Bush. Everything is Bushs' fault.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #237 on: October 23, 2004, 07:47:10 pm »
Ignore

Geez! Are you all still talking about this?Huh

36000 dies from the flu last year! Terrrorists are taking Iraq. Corporations are getting tax breaks that could be ours! Babies are "being murdered"! Pat Robertson is in the early stages of alzheimers! People are making bets on the election based on 7-11 coffee!

Get some perspective!

TCash101, the intellectual honesty of one of the candidates, and his willingness to pander, is a key issue.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Pictor Ignotus
TCash101
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6434


View Profile
« Reply #238 on: October 23, 2004, 07:59:45 pm »
Ignore

Geez! Are you all still talking about this?Huh

36000 dies from the flu last year! Terrrorists are taking Iraq. Corporations are getting tax breaks that could be ours! Babies are "being murdered"! Pat Robertson is in the early stages of alzheimers! People are making bets on the election based on 7-11 coffee!

Get some perspective!

TCash101, the intellectual honesty of one of the candidates, and his willingness to pander, is a key issue.

At least one of the candidates can claim to have an intellectual anything.

Logged

Renew our Democracy!
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #239 on: October 23, 2004, 08:04:00 pm »
Ignore

Geez! Are you all still talking about this?Huh

36000 dies from the flu last year! Terrrorists are taking Iraq. Corporations are getting tax breaks that could be ours! Babies are "being murdered"! Pat Robertson is in the early stages of alzheimers! People are making bets on the election based on 7-11 coffee!

Get some perspective!

TCash101, the intellectual honesty of one of the candidates, and his willingness to pander, is a key issue.

At least one of the candidates can claim to have an intellectual anything.




Kerry is an educated idiot, plain and simple.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #240 on: October 23, 2004, 08:26:37 pm »
Ignore

TCash101, the intellectual honesty of one of the candidates, and his willingness to pander, is a key issue.

At least one of the candidates can claim to have an intellectual anything.


Quote

I agree, Kerry is certainly intellectual in his dishonesty on this issue.  Bush may be unintellectual in his honesty, at least on this issue.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
elcorazon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2213


View Profile
« Reply #241 on: October 23, 2004, 11:57:05 pm »
Ignore

The amendment is intended primarily to stop activist courts from redefining marriage in any way they see fit, as the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has recently done. The first sentence, however, also limits legislatures by defining marriage as the people of the United States and of the West have known it.

Robert Bork

http://www.clsnet.org/clsPages/lobbying/fma/necessaryAmend.php

Many of the rationales behind the amendment don't like to talk about it but the scholars agree that the language of the first sentence disallows legislatures from allowing same-sex marriage. I guess technically, a state could choose to recognize a same sex marriage from another country if it's legislature so chose, but the only other reason I can think of for the use of the word marriage in the second sentence is that it was poorly drafted, probably because the main point of the first sentence is to drum up support for Bush' candidacy rather than pass the amendment itself.

J.J. - I'm really getting tired of you accusing me of being intellectually dishonest.  As I've stated a couple of times, EVEN if you are correct, it is clear that I believe my interpretation of the amendment and that it's a reasonable interpretation shared by others.  Seriously, I had no intention of getting into this drawn out discussion.

One more thing:  I'm sorry I asked if you were gay.  I didn't realize you were the same person who had discussed the issue earlier in the thread.  Throwing that in my face every time you try to refute my points is specious and is merely a personal attack which disguises your real point.  Try to stick to dealing with the specifics of our argument and it'll make this a lot less heated.

Thanks.
Logged


"The most important thing to remember is, no matter what anybody tells you, it is never, ever unpatriotic or un-American to question anything in a democracy"
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #242 on: October 24, 2004, 12:52:58 am »
Ignore

Many of the rationales behind the amendment don't like to talk about it but the scholars agree that the language of the first sentence disallows legislatures from allowing same-sex marriage. I guess technically, a state could choose to recognize a same sex marriage from another country if it's legislature so chose, but the only other reason I can think of for the use of the word marriage in the second sentence is that it was poorly drafted, probably because the main point of the first sentence is to drum up support for Bush' candidacy rather than pass the amendment itself.

J.J. - I'm really getting tired of you accusing me of being intellectually dishonest.  As I've stated a couple of times, EVEN if you are correct, it is clear that I believe my interpretation of the amendment and that it's a reasonable interpretation shared by others.  Seriously, I had no intention of getting into this drawn out discussion.

One more thing:  I'm sorry I asked if you were gay.  I didn't realize you were the same person who had discussed the issue earlier in the thread.  Throwing that in my face every time you try to refute my points is specious and is merely a personal attack which disguises your real point.  Try to stick to dealing with the specifics of our argument and it'll make this a lot less heated.

Thanks.

Well, you can expect it do continue, unless you wish to answer the question.  I have ask you to explain the wording of second sentence was "pooly drafted."  That is, whether correct or not, at least an honest answer.  However, with that sentence in there, how can can you jump to the conclusion that it makes same sex marriage either illegal or unconstitutional.  At worst, it creates an ambiguity that might, if your interpretation is correct, make same sex marriages be found by a court to make it unconstitutional.  The same judges who found an existing clause (in the MA Constitution) could find the same clause here, enough to permit statute to permit it.  (I should remind you that Bob Bork opinions did not get him confirmed to the Supreme Court.)

Basically, admit, even due to it being "poorly worded," that it does not clearly state what you claimed it did.  That is being intellectually honest.

Second, you have no need to say you are sorry for asking my preference.  I am confortable with who I am, and if I happened to be gay, I would have answered it the same way.  That's one benefit to having few illusions about yourself, you get to be brutially honest about yourself.

Third, you did ask me a question as to if I made a choice, which I answered.  Now, your sexual preference is your own business, and I have no desire to know, so I am not asking that.  I am asking you have any evidence that sexual preference, whatever it is, is totally inborn, without any "learned" or environmental influence?  Is their any evidence that there is no element of choice?

If you can make that claim, and support it with evidence, I'll be happy to recant my statements that the position that John Kerry was intellectually dishonest.  I challenge you to provide that evidence.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47609


View Profile
« Reply #243 on: October 24, 2004, 04:43:44 am »
Ignore

Geez! Are you all still talking about this?Huh

36000 dies from the flu last year! Terrrorists are taking Iraq. Corporations are getting tax breaks that could be ours! Babies are "being murdered"! Pat Robertson is in the early stages of alzheimers! People are making bets on the election based on 7-11 coffee!

Get some perspective!

TCash101, the intellectual honesty of one of the candidates, and his willingness to pander, is a key issue.

At least one of the candidates can claim to have an intellectual anything.




Kerry is an educated idiot, plain and simple.

The classic claim of the rube.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31302
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #244 on: October 24, 2004, 08:24:24 am »
Ignore

Flip....flop
Logged
elcorazon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2213


View Profile
« Reply #245 on: October 24, 2004, 01:58:35 pm »
Ignore

J.J. - I will say that it is possible to conclude that the amendment doesn't outlaw same sex marriages.  That's not my reading.  If I'm being "intellectually dishonest" then so are you by claiming that the amendment does not outlaw same sex marriages since clearly it "could" be interpreted that way.

I have no evidence one way or the other about whether it's a choice.  I just stated my belief, just as Kerry did.  Many political opinions are beliefs, sometimes based on solid evidence sometimes not. 

Logged


"The most important thing to remember is, no matter what anybody tells you, it is never, ever unpatriotic or un-American to question anything in a democracy"
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #246 on: October 24, 2004, 02:46:26 pm »
Ignore

J.J. - I will say that it is possible to conclude that the amendment doesn't outlaw same sex marriages.  That's not my reading.  If I'm being "intellectually dishonest" then so are you by claiming that the amendment does not outlaw same sex marriages since clearly it "could" be interpreted that way.

I have no evidence one way or the other about whether it's a choice.  I just stated my belief, just as Kerry did.  Many political opinions are beliefs, sometimes based on solid evidence sometimes not. 



You said Bush wanted to make same sex marriages "illegal."  I said that the amendment does not make it illegal, though I will admit that the wording is poor.  The words "illegal," "prohibited," "not allowed," "banned," "forbidden," are not used.  I have posted the text of what was proposed and am more than willing to let the reader make their own choice.

You've also posted:

"I have no evidence one way or the other about whether it's [sexual preference]a choice."  Well, I agree with that, and consider that to be intellectually honest.  Bush said, "I don't know."  He didn't go on to speak about as a "choice," a "lifestyle," or a "sin."  He spoke accurately on the evidence that is availible.

The question was:  "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

Here is what Kerry said:

KERRY: "We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."


To infer that a third party would be able to answer this question, authoritatively, is intellectually dishonest.

Here, BTW, is what Bush said:

BUSH: "You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that.

"And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.

"And that's to be honored."


Bush was being intellectually honest in this answer.  Kerry was not.

I'll submit that Mary Cheney doesn't have an answer either.


Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
elcorazon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2213


View Profile
« Reply #247 on: October 24, 2004, 04:15:45 pm »
Ignore

I appreciate your answer J.J.  I respectfully disagree.  I think Bush tries to give a safe answer which will not offend his base, while also not sounding bigoted to the mainstream who may be to his left on this issue.  I'm not sure that's intellectually honest.  I'll give him credit for dealing with the question in an intelligent manner politically.  I think Kerry believed what he said and I don't think that makes it intellectually dishonest.

I think when Bush said Saddam had WMD and turned out to be wrong, he was mistaken, not dishonest.  It turns out the "evidence" he had was wrong, but that doesn't make it dishonest.  He honestly believed what he said.  I believe Kerry honestly believes it's NOT a choice.  He could be wrong, but that's his HONEST belief; as far as I can tell.  Of course that's only my OPINION, as I have no hard evidence to prove it either way; nor do you, I might add.

Are we done yet? 

How bout them Bosox?
Logged


"The most important thing to remember is, no matter what anybody tells you, it is never, ever unpatriotic or un-American to question anything in a democracy"
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #248 on: October 24, 2004, 04:56:03 pm »
Ignore

I appreciate your answer J.J.  I respectfully disagree.  I think Bush tries to give a safe answer which will not offend his base, while also not sounding bigoted to the mainstream who may be to his left on this issue.  I'm not sure that's intellectually honest.  I'll give him credit for dealing with the question in an intelligent manner politically.  I think Kerry believed what he said and I don't think that makes it intellectually dishonest.

I think when Bush said Saddam had WMD and turned out to be wrong, he was mistaken, not dishonest.  It turns out the "evidence" he had was wrong, but that doesn't make it dishonest.  He honestly believed what he said.  I believe Kerry honestly believes it's NOT a choice.  He could be wrong, but that's his HONEST belief; as far as I can tell.  Of course that's only my OPINION, as I have no hard evidence to prove it either way; nor do you, I might add.

Are we done yet? 



I'm not so sure as you that this was anything as close to an appeal to the 'religious right" that you think.  A number will stand up and say, "Of course it's a choice, it the homosexual lifestyle."  An "I don't know," answer doesn't exactly appeal to that group; the comment that "...in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live," certainly doesn't.  That could cost him votes, very easily.

Bush could have correctly that there was an element of choice.  Someone need not act on his or her sexual desire, be he hetreo or homosexual.  I havn't slept with every women who's ever been willing to sleep with me.  In that respect, I do make a choice.  He could have answered the question that way, but didn't.  Instead he said, "I don't know."  That answer is both honest, so far as we can tell and it is accurate.

Now look at Kerry's answer.  He didn't answer the question directly.  He said to ask "Dick Cheney's daughter, who is lesbian, she would tell you ... ."  She doesn't have any more proof than either of us do, and she has never commented publically on it.   Kerry doesn't answer the question and uses as "proof" what he thinks she thinks.  That is intellectually dishonest.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
elcorazon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2213


View Profile
« Reply #249 on: October 25, 2004, 09:18:50 am »
Ignore

Kerry's answer was more persuasive than Bush's answer.  That's the point of a debate.

How did you like Bush's answer where he mangled what Dred Scott was all about?  Was that just a bad memory, ignorance or was that intellectual dishonesty?
Logged


"The most important thing to remember is, no matter what anybody tells you, it is never, ever unpatriotic or un-American to question anything in a democracy"
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines